Recently, I was with some clients at a somewhat secluded location. I was carrying a Ruger GP100, with a Comp III speedloader in a belt pouch and a Speed Strip with 6 more rounds for reloads. Entering the development, there was an adjacent lot with chain-link fencing, and numerous dogs, which sounded like larger dogs.
While the fencing apparently was secure (ore the dogs otherwise constrained), it gave me pause for thought: If accosted by a pack of dogs, would a revolver, especially at night, provide adequate protection? My thought went to DocGKR's fairly recent post where in a somewhat similar situation (albeit facing potentially feral teens, not dogs-he's the one who had the dog), he concluded "No" and switched to a larger-capacity semi-auto for such carry.
I have to agree. While I did so intellectually anyhow when he posted his previous thread, being placed is a similar situation was a bit of an eye-opener for me "heartwise." While I'm reasonably comfortable with my skills with a revolver, and with my GP100 specifically, and the loads I was carrying (Remington Golden Saber .38 Special 125gr +P), the combination of night shooting, limited capacity, and a more skill-intensive/mechanically demanding reload I think mitigate against a revolver. As the good Doc concluded, after evaluating the situation and the potential of a wild dog pack attack, I think I would have been better served with a more naturally indexing, higher capacity semi-automatic-probably one of my Glocks (G17, G19, GG21, G34).
While I certainly don't plan on eliminating revolvers from use in carry and/or competition, I think I will be much more judicious in their selection for outside-the-home self-defense due to some of their intrinsic limitations-I've concluded that a (quality) semi-auto is simply a more judicious choice, both generally and situationally.
Best, Jon